Skirting the Rules

It looks like Montana TEA Party Sen. Art Wittich (R-Gallatin) is up to no good again. Wittich appears to be waiting until the last minute to choose the easiest seat to run in. But, presumably in order to start raising money in the meantime, he’s filed for a seat he’s not permitted to run in–a seat held by an existing Senator who is not up for re-election.

Wittich [pronounced WITT-ick(!!)] filed paper work with the Commissioner of Political Practices saying he intends to run for SD35, which is Sen. Scott Sales’ “holdover district.” Sales is not up for re-election. He can’t run for a seat that a sitting Senator holds.

Montana Office of Political practices has been notified, and Cowgirl tipsters report that the OPP have asked Wittich to correct the filing–but he apparently won’t return calls.

Wittich is widely expected to run in SD 34, the new Belgrade senate seat, in a GOP primary against Bruce Grubbs, who was recruited by main street Republican Sen. Llew Jones (R-Conrad). He could also run in SD32 for the 2014 cycle, but with democratic favorite Franke Wilmer in that seat, he likely won’t go anywhere near it.

Tea Party leader Art Wittich has been out on the stump. He’s hoping to draw out some ire for what he called “adjective Republicans”–people who care more about jobs and economic development then brown shirt TEA Party ideology–New World Order conspiracy theories, Chick-fil-A, ending “fiat” currency in favor of gold and silver, and denying health care to the working poor.

59 Commentson "Skirting the Rules"

Wittich is pompous, self-serving and certainly worthy of a LOT of scrutiny and fan of dark money, so we’ll see how the GOP settles its integrity and values issues on that, and are they really for the working class or corporate vultures?

Good question. I should have addressed this in my post. You are eligible to run in any district within the county in which you live. However, you are not eligible to run for a seat which is not up for re-election.

Kenneth,
Good morning. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I’m curious about your claim in another tread not to be a Democrat. Is there something about identifying with the goals and programs of a particular political party that you find intellectually confining?

I’m definitely a Democrat. That doesn’t mean I approve of everything some Democrats do. I really like Kristen Gillibrand, for example, but I disapprove of her effort to undermine the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts in Iran by trying to put through new sanctions on that country. I’m sorry she’s so beholden to the Israel Lobby. And I’m not happy with President Obama’s continued use of drones in the Middle East.

But, in general, I approve of what has gone on and still goes on in my party. This is especially true with respect to the Party’s support for social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and even “Obamacare” – a program grievously weakened by a compromise with the insurance industry. Republicans have opposed all these programs and continue to do so.

In general, the Democratic Party has been on the side of middle-class and lower-middle-class people like me while the Republican Party, the only other serious party in our country, has not.

Historically and today, they’re the party of fat cats, especially when they’re white and male. GOP might as well stand for Guardians of Privilege.

The Democratic Party, which until the 1960s embraced white racism, has pretty much cleaned up its act. The party now fights for the rights of racial minorities, gay people, women, children, consumers, underpaid workers, and others groups who’ve not had it too good lately.

I just don’t understand why you or anyone else would be reluctant to openly identify with a party that pursues virtuous goals. It’s your choice, of course, Kenneth. You can think and say anything you want. I just don’t get it.

It is a fair question, Richard, and I will try to answer to the best of my ability.

When I first started voting, the Republicans were actually the party of the middle class and definitely the party that supported the military. I was in the Military at the time (I joined at 16) and the Republicans were the ones supporting us. In fact, in 78, the Democrats were actively demonizing the Military at the time. My family was primarily Democrat (not sure about my Dad, but the rest – definitely)

At that time, the Republicans were for fair wages, a fairly regulated free market, and a strong military. The Democrats were primarily for burning down our government and starting over. Remember, this was before Clinton rebranded the Democrats.

When Reagan took office the complexion of the Republican Party changed. Reagan was openly corporatist and his voodoo economics were hideous (Trickle down). I was still very much a Republican but I was starting to get really uncomfortable with the whole “get yours meathead” mentality.

It should also be pointed out that when first stated voting, Republicans were pretty neutral on social issues. Most Republicans were Christian but you didn’t talk about your faith – that was between you and God. The Evangelical movement happened about the same time as Reagan’s sweeping changes to the Republican party.

When Clinton took office, he did so by completely rebranding the Democratic party. They still looked for Government based solutions to everything but they were more fiscally aware. In fact, Clinton and Nixon are the only two presidents to submit a balanced budget since 1960. The radical left was minimized under Clinton and this allowed Clinton to carry out a program of social changes that were somewhat fiscally sound.

I am not saying that the Democrats don’t have positive ideas. I have supported many of them. My problem with the Democrats goes back to my basic outlook on things – I am a fiscal conservative. Being a social progressive, many of the Democratic ideas I like, but the Democrats are often their own worst enemy. Only the Democrats turn a victory into a major defeat in nothing flat.

I don’t claim a party because I am opposed the very idea of party politics. We should be electing our representatives on the basis of who they are and what they support in the way of issues, not party – in short, I support the individual, not the party. The parties change in some kind of strange tug of war, and we are too quick to label a person based on a changing set of ideals.

I don’t know if that answered your question or not. I am comfortable in my political beliefs and everything else stems outward from there. I tend to vote somewhat to the left because the right has gone so batshit crazy and because I have a very persuasive brother, but I am not ready or willing to be labeled by a party – especially a party that is still trying to figure out who they are.

I will say this – Democrat or Republican, the easiest way to get me to vote against someone is to come out as being a corporatist. I will never vote for Daines or Baucus for that very reason. I personally believe that corporatism is the single largest threat to our governmental system and I will fight tooth and nail against any politician – left or right – that promotes it.

Kenneth, I suggest to you yet again that your view of Democrats in the late 1970s is a bit … skewed. (‘Screwed up is what I really wanted to write.’) No more Democrats were openly demonizing the military then than are doing so now. Far fewer Democrats then were openly calling for the destruction of our government than Republicans are now. What was different was that Nixon had already been successful at the Southern strategy of pulling racists into the R party. What was different is that our country had just had it’s first mass-media look into how corrupt our government could be. Democrats were still ostensibly the ‘war-hawk’ party, but a little organization called OPEC derailed those thoughts, making the Dems look pretty stupid in the process. Thoughts shifted to the economy, and then Iran had themselves a little democratic (theocratic) revolution against a dictator. In swooped Saint Reagan, a puppet if ever there was one, to save the day by making deals with terrorists which us brave ‘Murkins never do. Parties are simply place-holders for a given set of beliefs, and the D party never truly recovered from being branded as ‘losers’. While you hold that Democrats wanted to throw out our system of government, the Republicans successfully did it. They elected an actor to the highest office of the executive branch, and established the ‘enemies list’ not from secret audio tapes (ick!) but rather as a point of public concern. They turned the Chief Executive into a king, which is really all that mattered to them. They’ve been able to convince Democrats of the same, and if Barack Obama has one huge failing, it’s that he manipulated that view better than Reagan ever could. He’s smarter, you get that, right?

Clinton did not entirely re-brand the Democratic party, and I would appreciate you showing him do it. Reagan lowered taxes on the wealthy and put us into a recession, but that didn’t matter because he was a ‘strong leader’. Clinton raised taxes on the top earners and recovered an economy for a while, and lost the Congress two years into his term. That wasn’t re-branding. It was following Democratic principles as Turner describes above.

No, when you started voting, Republicants weren’t neutral on social issues. See the aforementioned quip about the Southern Strategy. What they added was the fear. The fear of a weak military, the fear of a weak economy not run by corporations, the fear that women might not serve our desires, the fear of not having a king.

I freely admit that my view of Democrats as the time was skewed and we have had this discussion before. It wasn’t Republicans spitting on me in San Diego. It wasn’t the Republicans spraying us with garden hoses in Norfolk.

I am aware of the Southern strategy but like all political moves, it took time before that really changed the Republican party. As I stated before, I didn’t see it until after Reagan got elected.

You have made your case that I was an idiot for being a Republican before but I stand unmoved. I followed what I thought at the time was the party that best supported my views, issues and concerns. That changed with Reagan and I haven’t been a registered Republican since then.

No, but it wasn’t Democrats spitting on you either. It was ‘hippies’? ‘Idiots’? ‘Clowns’? Are you suggesting that Democrats have better garden-hose-fu? If you buy into that mythology, then I would be a helluva lot more concerned about Republicants who appear to favor tasers and bullets. I’m just suggesting, Bro …

I would also point out that the Democrats don’t do well working together. Each Democrat seems to be working for the individual, not the group. This is – in my opinion – one of the things keeps the Democrats on the loosing side of the ticket so often. Let me give you an example –

If the Democrats were able to work as a team and energize their base as a team, the Tea Party would have died a swift and unlamented death. Further, the Democrats – with a shaky majority in both House and Senate, would have been able to sell the idea of Medicaid for all. It was supported by a majority of the voting populous, but the Democrats were so busy fighting each other, they failed to get the job done. Even if you look at the ACA as a stepping stone (an idea I still have a hard time buying), why did the Democrats let the rollout fail so miserably? There is very little chance the ACA will be a stepping stone to what we should have had in the first place and it will be a small miracle if the ACA isn’t completely gutted in the next six years.

So why does a fiscal conservative support the idea of Medicaid for all? Simple. It is the most cost effective way of A)providing the basic level of health care necessary to every US citizen while B) instituting common sense cost regulations on the industry. A simple fiscal analysis shows that Medicaid for all was the very best solution to our health care system. Sadly, that wasn’t the way it was sold…

I’m a small town Democrat who’s not really in tight with the Party at state level. At conventions I’m treated politely but no one seeks my advice.

I’m unaware of the in-fighting you refer to. If it’s happening, I don’t know whose involved or what it’s about.

In any case the failures to win elections against rabid right-wingers is hardly the result of Democratic infighting, if it exists. It’s a result of the demographics of the state, which show a populous increasingly more old, white, and poorly educated.

Not being good at political strategy might be a good complaint to make about Montana Democrats. They need better advice and they need to take it. This doesn’t detract, for me at least, from their morally superior stand on the issues that count most.

So I remain a proud Democrat and hope you’ll do what you can, with your reservations, to help the Good Guys.

See, that right there is my problem with Democrats and Republicans alike – the whole “Us vs Them” mentality. To you, anyone that isn’t a Democrat is “The Bad Guys” and everyone that is a Democrat is a “A Good Guy”. Was Bob Filner a good guy? Was Anthony Weiner a good guy? Was Micheal Brown a good guy? I could go on, but I am sure you get the point. The Democrats don’t have a monopoly on being “good guys”. There are plenty of “good guys” on the right Olivia Snowe for example.

I will help those candidates I think will represent the people they are elected to represent. I will support those candidates I believe in. Yes, Jon Tester and Monica Lindeen are two of those candidates and yes, I supported them. I provisionally supported Bullock because I think he was a great Attorney General and I think he was a much better candidate than Hill. That said, I was not as impressed with the idea of Bullock as Governor and had a better candidate been offered on the right, I would have voted differently. I support Walsh at this point on the strength of my wife’s belief in him (she met him while she worked at Montana Youth Challenge) but that support is waning rapidly given that he is running an absentee campaign. I will end up voting for him because he is NOT Daines but that is the wrong reason to vote for anyone.

Jim Wright did a much better job at describing why I am no longer a Republican and I would highly suggest you read his post about it. It might give you a better idea why I can’t buy into being a Democrat while still supporting Democrats in elections at this point.

Here is an exerpt from one of those essays that says it much better than I did –

“I attained the age of majority during the Carter Administration. Back then I was defined as a traditional conservative. Balanced budget. War only when necessary. Mom. Apple pie. Conservatives were doctors, engineers, scientists, the guys with the buzz cuts and white shirts who worked at NASA and got us to the moon and back. They smoked Pall Malls and drank Pabst Blue Ribbon. They worked on the assembly line at Ford and GM and they BBQ’d in their backyards in the suburbs on the weekends. You didn’t have to ask, you knew they were veterans. If they went to church on Sunday, that was their business – they never talked about it. They were Boy Scouts and Little Leaguers and members of the Elks Club. Live and let live. They were the folks who said “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll die to defend your right to say it” and they meant every word of it.”

My use of “Good Guys” was shorthand for politicians who tend to care about the lives of real people. And they’re almost always Democrats.

And there are unquestionably “Bad Guys.” They vote to cut food stamps, cut off unemployment insurance, cut the WIC program. They try to make it hard for racial minorities to vote. They want to go to war in Iran and elsewhere to benefit “defense” contractors.

They work to protect big corporations and screw average Americans. They try to defund governmental agencies that protect the environment, regulate banks, and inspect food so that corporate vultures can increase their already obscene profits. They’re willing to shut down the government to keep people from getting health insurance.

There is no equivalent behavior on the Democratic side. These are all Republican behaviors and, yes, it makes them the “Bad Guys.”

It’s not simplistic to make the distinction I’m making. It’s what an ethical person does.

If you honestly believe that there are no people like that on the Democratic side, you are not paying attention. There most certainly are – starting with Max Baucus. I can remember a time when Max was idealistic, and seriously concerned about representing the working man in Montana. That is certainly not the case any longer.

I applaud your loyalty to your party, but I caution you not to let it cloud your vision. All I would have to do is look at the votes in either the Montana Legislature or the US Congress to find plenty of examples of both Republicans voting the right way on issues and Democrats voting the wrong way. Politics is not a zero sum game and there are good guys and bad guys on both sides of the aisles.

Being a Democrat and identifying with that is fine – for you. It doesn’t work for me for the reasons I have already listed. That doesn’t make me a “bad guy” or an “earth hater” (the very idea that someone would call me of all people that is laughable). It makes me an individualistic voter with criteria of my own.

It helps with Baucus to remember that he goes back to a long, long tradition in Montana politics – he represents the ranching community. Due to the ownership of land (=power) that group has always managed to have a few of their own in high positions, and Baucus, of the Sieben line, came along as a young man eager to join either party as the path ahead dictated. Since the New Deal Dems still had huge sway, he chose to be a Democrat. I’ve never sensed an ounce of idealism in him, however, Due to staying power and the odd inabiliy of Republicans to put up credible opposition, Baucus has hung around the senate long enough to gain leadership posts due to seniority. He’s never been a spokesperson, since he can hardly speak on a public forum.

Norma, for once shut up, read, and learn. Here you go again with the insults that provoke fights. You are not the victim. EVER!!!!
The exchange between Turner and Moorcat is what the blog experience should be.

Hey Craig I did’nt ask you. I try not to have conversations with a Tea bagger’s like you, and you weren’t spoken too. This is a Liberal blog, do you understand that concept? If you gonna attack liberalism be ready to prove to me or any other liberal out here equivalency

As one of the “they” you were referring to, Norma, I think I have a little leeway in responding to you at what you obviously consider your website to command and control.

“they” aren’t required to like any “Flavor”(sic) at all, on any given day, save the one in which they blacken ovals, which “they” also aren’t required to do. In fact, at no point in this conversation did I show favor to any Flavor(sic) save history. Before questioning anyone else’s comprehension, you might want to review your own failings. Motes in eyes, and all that …

Sounds like the Tea Party to me. And while they may ‘claim’ to be Republican, I truly do not believe that they ARE Republican. I think it is unfair to paint the Republican party with the same brush as the Tea Party.

As I said before, I’ve seen good and bad on both sides of the aisle. And the weird thing about morals and ethics is that they differ from person to person. I don’t think either party can really claim to be the morally or ethically superior party.

Lets make it easy shall we GIve us a ratio of GOP vrs Democrats which act crazy….And unfortunately for you, Tea-party members are under the banner of republicans, not themselves…they have to be counted as GOP because the GOP willingly accepted them.

Its not like the tea party Hijacked the republican car, hell the Republicans moved over and gave them the drivers seat, the keys and the title to boot.

I think use of the expression “both sides” in terms or ideology necessarily limits outlook, as a huge swath of ideological perspective lies outside the narrow Wall Street-dictated confines of the parties.

I was speaking equivalence:
1. The state or condition of being equivalent; equality.
2. Mathematics An equivalence relation.
3. neck and neck Even, equal, on a par; abreast, at the same pace, parity, Sameness, likeness, exactly the same.
4. nip and tuck So close as to be of uncertain outcome.

“Both sides” does not explain that.

I was asking for a proof of Equivalence. Meaning she would need to prove both Parties do exactly the same things to get themselves into the news, at exactly the same ratio…..And or she would have to prove to me that Tea party members are not candidates of the Republican Party. Doesn’t matter what they call themselves. when they run they mostly run as republicans.

And the weird thing about morals and ethics is that they differ from person to person. I don’t think either party can really claim to be the morally or ethically superior party.

That *is* an equivalence. Mark also drew an equivalence, that both parties are driven as image by Wall Street constructs. That too is an equivalence of parties, and Mark argues that view that equivalence as ‘Them v. Us’ limits any consideration of the individuals in favor of an illusion of ‘party’, (which Brittany was kinda saying as well.)
Now, rather then demanding that others “prove” things they never wrote, wouldn’t it be more useful and persuasive (not to mention logically relevant) to actually argue what they wrote instead of what you’d like to think they wrote?

I’m really not sure what ‘equivalence’ you are referring to. I did not say that they were equal in anything, I said that I have seen good and bad on both sides. I did not say that I have seen more good on either side than the other. Nor did I say that I have seen more bad on one side than the other.

I try very hard not to judge an entire party by the actions of one or a few. That is just an ugly mindset to be in. By doing so, you miss the gems that are in there, hidden by the crap.

I personally believe that the entire party system should go the way of the Dodo. I think the system itself is so broken that it is beyond repair. But I guess that is another thread in itself.

And just to be very clear, Norma, do not try to pull me into your shit slinging fests like you do to others. It isn’t very often that I’m willing to stoop to that crap. If you want to challenge what I say, then ensure that you are challenging what I actually SAY, not what you think I said. I say exactly what I mean and I mean exactly what I say.

In2it – I acknowledge that there are more than 2 sides in this whole debacle we call modern day politics. But the 2 predominant ones are the ones that seem to do the most damage, hence, they are the ones I was speaking of.

If I understand what you wrote, then I also agree that there is a huge swath of ideology outside of those 2 parties or sides. Sadly, most of the discussion regarding those ideologies is drowned out by all of the other nastiness so no one gets to hear/discuss those ideas. Did I understand your comment correctly?

Surelyyoujest, Yeah we get news feeds in Dillon. God bless um its all attached to Fox news, down here though.

Something I refuse to watch, or listen too. I guess I am to busy waiting for real news stations…. or going to find the news myself.

Ya see the town here, has gone into Tin Hat mode. Where the New Mayor believes he can pick who he wants for city heads, hire and fire who he pleases, while the city council who was elected as well… must bow to the new King wishes????

Didn’t work very well for Butte two years ago, since the mayor there, cost that city about 2 million in legal costs. Didn’t work for our last Mayor, when he thought he was first elected King also for a time( that guy grew up though, became informed, actually did us some good)….. HIstory, doesn’t seem to help inform our shiny new mayor Mike Klakken yet, he just isn’t interested in facts either.

Last night he tried to fire the city attorney, and the city manager and replace them with untested, far less experienced people who promised to do their Jobs cheaper. He was all about shoving new people into difficult legal positions without the experience….. the city council said “NO”

Then there was Mayor Klakken who keeped allowing another attorney in the audience to jump up and make crazy statements about his supposed right to power over city council. You would have loved her legal reasoning??????

“3rd class cities Don’t have to follow state and federal law like 1rst class cities in Montana?” Really? Or why we should not wait and get informed opinions and reports before moving forward that would save the city a lawsuit? I believe her exact wording on this argument was, “Why are we afraid of Lawsuits?????” Oh my God!

It was a political circus of power to be sure on the first city council meeting of the new mayor…..

In which the less informed voter, thought they were getting a mayor who promised to take the city back in time to a simplier place, which was always a lie….. vrs a city council who knows we are 30 years behind on infrastructure, and need to keep up from now on to continue to get state and federal monies to improve…. there is no Turning Back if you want to stay current as a college community. And we are still one of the cheapest cities and counties to get taxed in the state. Oh sure we are constrained from repairing everything at once, but it is catching up day by day without costing us as much to repair and replace if we did it all at once.

I had two questions for our shiny new Mayor last night, “If it aint broke why are we fixing problems that don’t exist?” , and “Did he realize yet, He wasn’t the only person elected to help the people of our area. The city council are elected individuals also, in a simple process called Democracy.”

Normally, I wouldn’t respond to your posts, Norma, but a few factual errors here. First, the new mayor was elected to bring down the cost of the City Government. That was the platform he ran on and that was the platform he was elected to do. He was attempted to do what he was elected to do when the “crazies” tried to assert their own authority. You do realize that Malesich signed Wilber’s contract without City Council Approval, right? (oh yes, you were still in California when that occurred.. my bad).

It most certainly IS broke and it certainly does need fixed. Maybe you don’t realize this because you don’t live here but it is one of the reasons many here in Dillon don’t even bother getting involved anymore.

And one more thing.. with the exception of Lynn Westad, none of the city council people were “elected”. The seats they are currently in were won because no one ran for those seats and these three people put in for a “writein” candidate at the last minute. They would have won with one vote (and a couple didn’t get all that many more than that). They weren’t “elected” in the truest sense and they certainly do not represent the will of anyone except themselves.

I would also remind you that the City Government is not a Democracy. It is a representative government dictated by a set of rules passed here in Dillon. The idea of the citizens having a direct say in anything here in Dillon died with Malesich.

Oh, and one other thing. It wasn’t the “city manager” that Klakken didn’t want to renew the contract for. It was the City Treasurer – Ty Cobb (another person you have no idea what you are talking about because you weren’t here when certain events occurred). Dillon doesn’t have a “City Manager”. We have a “Director of Operations” but that wasn’t the position under discussion.

Norma – The Dillon update, while interesting, had nothing to do with my comment to you. I countered your assertion in regards to the Republican Party and the power of the Tea Party and you came back with this screed on Dillon.

Good morning, Norma. I’ll just respond once since a lengthy thread on Dillon politics probably isn’t very interesting to most who visit this site.

I looked up the pertinent sections of the City of Dillon Code. It appears that the mayor’s appointments can’t be finalized without the consent of the city council. So, procedurally, what happened last night was correct.

The mayor’s appointments were not approved.

That leaves an interesting question, though. What if the mayor refuses to re-appoint the current city attorney and treasurer? What if he, instead, tries again to appoint the same people the council rejected?

The term of the current attorney and treasurer has either already expired or will soon expire. Does the city council have the right to reappoint them over the objections of the new mayor?

Not according to the City Code.

I don’t know if Klakken has the will to stand up to the council and insist on his appointments. But since he and only he can make appointments he can force the council to either accept his appointees or go without an attorney and treasurer.

Maybe going without these positions wouldn’t be so bad. There are plenty of lawyers and money people around. Maybe they could be contracted with on a year-to-year basis.

BTW, it should be noted that what Turner suggests is exactly the way it used to be done. Before Malesich hired Wilber without the city council’s approval, the city used to use a local law firm on a contractual basis. We also used to use contractual help with finances when the issues was too complex for the normal city staff – but then again, it wasn’t all that long ago that the City Mayor was a parttime, low paying position (no Malesich didn’t do that – it was done before his reign – Malesich only increased the pay for the job by 14K a year before he was done).

Well, you left before the audience got a chance to speak Richard…… Which by the way was highly packed with people who liked Klakken but didn’t understand any of the code and hardly anything regarding the law in General…. BUt besides that point they( city Council and Mike) will need to work out their disagreements without the highly charged partisan politics of that room.
Thats what I told them. Klakken is gonna have to lose the ill informed Audience…. and stop using them to speak out of turn in a city council meeting. Secondly he can slide the replacements in after they current attorney finishes the cases he already has for the city, and the city treasurer finishes paying for the improvements the city is already contracted for. If it isn’t broke why fix it? Thats right! thats the right thing to do.

See thats how you do a smooth transition… no fuss no muss. no problems… and lets face it besides the city council, Klakken will have to go back to those people for advice down the road…

Why burn bridges???? I just don’t understand it.

I recorded sound and visual. Didn’t see Kailey’s there….

It was bitter last night, towards the elected city council and they were doing the right thing reining Klakken in. Democracy is a balance of Power, not a kingship. Apparently his supporters aren’t aware of how American law works in general???? His job might be for the next few months to let stuff run its course at the city level….And the edification of his supporters. The Man Promised the Moon and he is gonna have to dial that back, for the Gullible, to just a trip to the airport.

Or he can keep acting like a Baffoon and not have the city council back him on anything……. Just saying

Lastly remind yourself, I had to say this and I am one of the only liberals left in the room.

Norma, I didn’t have to attend. I saw the video of the event. It is you who is misinformed. A few things…

Dillon Does not have a city Manager. There is no such office in our Charter. Maybe you were thinking about the California rules you left in 2006. BTW, I like how you said in the video that you had been watching for 12 years.

2) It was Malesich that set up the mayor as a King. Klakken is trying to change that. He is also trying to save the city tens of thousands of dollars. I guess you missed that while you were running your mouth.

3) Montana has a constitutional balanced budget amendment. You are probably not aware of it, but the city of Dillon has gotten in trouble more than once for keeping too much money in the bank – that is kind of against the law here. Your statement in the meeting proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Cities in Montana do not brag about having money in the bank because it means they are breaking the rules.

Your last statement has no meaning. The City government in Dillon is entirely non-partisan. Rebublican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative means nothing when it comes to the city government in Dillon. There is just the charter and ordinances. Klakken had the right (some would say the duty…) to appoint those positions. The Council had the right to disapprove his choices. The end result is that our City is currently operating outside it’s charter because it is paying two individuals without proper authorization. Nothing you say here changes that sad fact. About the only thing we agree about is that there is a power struggle going on. The sad fact is that the council is in the wrong unless they can justify their position in disapproving Klakken’s appointments. Even the spectators pointed that out – one went so far as to call it cowardly.

One other thought on this and I will let it go. As I said before. I was at the employee meeting. two months after Klakken was elected, was when he decided to show up and talk to people. So you know I am on the chalk Board regarding the City bus Service here….. It KInda a mandatory position because I run the the only other people transportation in the city for them to keep their grants…..

Meanwhile in those two months after the election when Mike decided not to check out his new job and meet the city workers of dillon…… Klakkens minions are running all over Dillon… spouting how they are gonna have klakken rip the staff. fire everyone they don’t like. Put the city council on Notice Blah blah, Blah…. We are a friggin tiny town….. If a leaf falls off a tree here most sane folks notice it lying on the street…. Missing from the tree.

The Rumors about Klakken shaking heaven and earth, sounded like trumpets on a PA system. A lot of people heard it and didn’t like it…. right up to the employees and city council. DId Klakken belie those fears at that meeting….. NO?

DId he jump right into trying to fulfill the minon tales? WHy yes he did!

What Video because it wasn’t televised????? there was only two cameras in that room besides photo cameras of the news guys. Neither video camera was attached to streaming, the other guys camera was at least 10b years old. I can at lest stream with my setup?????? How did you watch it again ???? LOL

One Thought
Then Two Thought,
‘at lest streaming’ and
THAT CAMERA WAS TWO BILLION YEARS OLD!

(Psst, that’s what “10b” means.) Norma, what exactly do the screwed up inner-workings of the city of Dillon have to do with Art Wittich? You brought it up, though I am certain you will caterwaul that somebody else responded so that “they” are to blame for this off topic drivel. Seriously, Kenneth posted a link where you can go argue about it at will.

Apperently you are unaware that there is a blogger in Dillon (besides me) and he (like me) uses a billion year old digital camera to capture video and upload it to youtube. Unlike you, I am aware of this and because of it I am never tempted to punch Troaddson solidly in his laughing ugly face. I have been following Dillon politics for some time now, even though I haven’t written about it. I don’t need to be seen by you to do so.

On the plus side, he has marked the timestamps of some interesting events during the meeting – like where Swede Troaddson is trying go against Dillon ordinance and start a conversation about the pay of the Mayor’s office. I guess he forgot (or ignored) that the conversation about compensation for the mayor occurs during budget time – in the summer. The Citizens of Dillon are going to seriously regret having Swede back on the City Council.

Rob I have tried. I have really tried, buy my google fu has failed me on that one. No matter how many search engines I try, I simply can’t find anything on “the rights of social understanding”. I have found all kinds of explanations for “understanding Social Actions” (it was actually the main topic in one of my sociology classes in college) but that doesn’t fit in context with what Norma said. I found lots of sites on Understanding Human Rights, but again, that doesn’t really fit. Sorry, bud, I can’t help you here. Personally, I think it is word salad.

Voters should KNOW who really wants to represent their values and should live in that particular district. Their are some GOP candidates tasked to ‘penetrate’ some urban districts and the candidates thirty or miles away in a remote corner of the county.

Voters should KNOW who really wants to represent their values and should live in that particular district. Their are some GOP candidates tasked to ‘penetrate’ some urban districts and the candidates thirty or miles away in a remote corner of the county.

One of the so-called leaders of the Republican party and he can’t even file correctly? This man, and Essman, are the biggest roadblocks to anything good coming from the right. The sooner these two dolts are removed/replaced the better.

I find it interesting that Cowgirl provides the pronunciation of his last name as he takes great offense if you pronounce incorrectly. I know some who have to deal with him on a somewhat regular basis who say it wrong just to piss him off.

The man is, in my opinion, a despicable human with an incredibly inflated sense of self.

Thats one thing Publius, I think both parties are rather bad at explaining I am afraid…. and montanans aren’t interested in pursuing. Traditionally it seems more than a third of folks don’t vote in Primaries. and in some counties its almost half on off presidential years.

As much as we cherish a good following of politics as a hobby here at cowgirl, our real neighbors and communities don’t. This is why tea party Candidates sneak into the general, because of ardent wacko voters in the primaries.

Does it help the Dems? Yes it certainly does come general, but not because of anything we do as a party to get the word out in Primaries. Something we truly lack conviction in picking up independent voters at that time. Its my hope we get better at that, down the road.

I would think that since Mr. Wittich is an attorney, his obvious flaunting of the election laws as described by Cowgirl is a matter that should be referred to the Commission on Practice. It is against the Attorneys Code of Professional Conduct to act so publically contrary to the law which both an attorney and ranking member of the Legislature obviously knows and is directly defying.